Walton in, Jeffress up addressing the nondisclosure agreements.
Paragraph in dispute: paragraph 3.
Jeffress: Two problems, this is the one that talks about what Bonamici was talking about this morning, it talks about the fact that he should have gone and asked somebody. Your honor has agreed to put it in for motive, but this will go to behavior he should have done. This is the paragraph that remains. This is the negligence standard. Your honor will recall, we've asked for discovery about what other people thought, the govt denied us discovery on that issue. If we're going to get into this standard. I think the govt trying to insert some additional violation, it would be highly prejudicial, he's not even charged with leaking classified information much less failing to check. We would object to putting any of the other agreements in. There's just no suggestion that her occupation was in some compartment. Bonamici pointed out that note (from Cheney) was stamped with a "treat as Top Secret/SCI." Miss Mayfield is the one who puts stamps on it, they just stamp everything. That's why it was done, it would be completely unfair in light of the testimony.
Paragraph in dispute: paragraph 3.
Jeffress: Two problems, this is the one that talks about what Bonamici was talking about this morning, it talks about the fact that he should have gone and asked somebody. Your honor has agreed to put it in for motive, but this will go to behavior he should have done. This is the paragraph that remains. This is the negligence standard. Your honor will recall, we've asked for discovery about what other people thought, the govt denied us discovery on that issue. If we're going to get into this standard. I think the govt trying to insert some additional violation, it would be highly prejudicial, he's not even charged with leaking classified information much less failing to check. We would object to putting any of the other agreements in. There's just no suggestion that her occupation was in some compartment. Bonamici pointed out that note (from Cheney) was stamped with a "treat as Top Secret/SCI." Miss Mayfield is the one who puts stamps on it, they just stamp everything. That's why it was done, it would be completely unfair in light of the testimony.
Walton: The testimony about that, wouldn't that be confusing to jury.
Bonamici: I don't agree with the characterization, about how it got the stamp. It bears an TS/SCI stamp.
Walton: Is there something in the record that the jury will consider to see whether there was a violation of these other agreements.
B: The jury will be asked to consider whether defendant had state of mind that he might have violated one of these agreements.
W: Will that end up being confusing.
B: I don't think it's confusing, it's the crux of the govt case.
W: They have to make some assessment?
J: They would if Govt contending there were a violation. Why is an agreement regarding a certain compartment.
W: Compartments, what are you talking about?
Some issue. should do in chambers. (Looks like CIA lawyer had an objection.)
2:00 pm ET
W: Will that end up being confusing.
B: I don't think it's confusing, it's the crux of the govt case.
W: They have to make some assessment?
J: They would if Govt contending there were a violation. Why is an agreement regarding a certain compartment.
W: Compartments, what are you talking about?
Some issue. should do in chambers. (Looks like CIA lawyer had an objection.)
2:00 pm ET
Update 2:
Walton: I just talked to a security expert. And I think if jury doesn't have somebody who explains this, they'll be confused about whether there was a violation. As I understand it there was a violation of 5A, if they start looking at those, they'll become confused. Even given what was explained to me, I'd have to have some testimony in order to make the assessment you're asking for.
B: The jury is not going to be asked to assess whether there was a violation, only
Walton: Only whether he thought there was a violation.
Walton: What he did, is it from Govt's idea that he could have violated something without also violating 5A?
B: No, he would also violate 5A, including paragraph 3.
W: The issue they have to focus on is whether defendant would have thought that conceivably there was a problem,he would have obligation to check. It seems to me they focus on his mental state. If he had concerns about whether it was appropriate to reveal this.
B: The real issue here is that the defendant made up a story that took the classified nature of information out of the picture.
W: You're saying he did that because he throught there was a violation.
J: There's no evidence he is worried about this.
B: There's already BEEN evidence–the question to Addington.
W: Conceivably, maybe it was only the political revelation, but maybe it did. And I don't think that that determination can be made. Question is whether there is sufficient evidence in the record that he didn't want that out there. If he knows he signed a nondisclosure, that seems relevant. The jury has a right to be able to take that into consideration.
J: How is the jury to evaluate this info. Are they going to be given law?
W They only look at Libby's conduct in assessing whether he felt it was inappropriate to disclose this. I don't think they have to make a determination of whether he violated this.
J: They're arguing that he was worried that he hadn't done enough to find out whether her status was classified or not.
W: What are you going to argue WRT paragraph 3.
B: The defendant knows what's being looked at, as your honor just pointed out, there's a whole range of things he might have done, when he decided to make up a story. Addington testified that he provided defendant copy of statute that might come into effect. He understood that one of possible ramifications of conduct was a violation of this agreement.
W: I think the question is sufficient to jury.
J: All he asked Addington whether she was covert or not covert.
W: I have an obligation not to disclose anything I understand that and if I don't do that, if I end up being prosecuted for a crime, the govt can present to jury that I had an obligation not to do, so long as they argue in appropriate way. Note for the record. I will permit govt to admit entire exhibit and preclude them from entering the others.
Walton: You're taking a toll on me today.
Jury IN!! Finally!!
B: The jury is not going to be asked to assess whether there was a violation, only
Walton: Only whether he thought there was a violation.
Walton: What he did, is it from Govt's idea that he could have violated something without also violating 5A?
B: No, he would also violate 5A, including paragraph 3.
W: The issue they have to focus on is whether defendant would have thought that conceivably there was a problem,he would have obligation to check. It seems to me they focus on his mental state. If he had concerns about whether it was appropriate to reveal this.
B: The real issue here is that the defendant made up a story that took the classified nature of information out of the picture.
W: You're saying he did that because he throught there was a violation.
J: There's no evidence he is worried about this.
B: There's already BEEN evidence–the question to Addington.
W: Conceivably, maybe it was only the political revelation, but maybe it did. And I don't think that that determination can be made. Question is whether there is sufficient evidence in the record that he didn't want that out there. If he knows he signed a nondisclosure, that seems relevant. The jury has a right to be able to take that into consideration.
J: How is the jury to evaluate this info. Are they going to be given law?
W They only look at Libby's conduct in assessing whether he felt it was inappropriate to disclose this. I don't think they have to make a determination of whether he violated this.
J: They're arguing that he was worried that he hadn't done enough to find out whether her status was classified or not.
W: What are you going to argue WRT paragraph 3.
B: The defendant knows what's being looked at, as your honor just pointed out, there's a whole range of things he might have done, when he decided to make up a story. Addington testified that he provided defendant copy of statute that might come into effect. He understood that one of possible ramifications of conduct was a violation of this agreement.
W: I think the question is sufficient to jury.
J: All he asked Addington whether she was covert or not covert.
W: I have an obligation not to disclose anything I understand that and if I don't do that, if I end up being prosecuted for a crime, the govt can present to jury that I had an obligation not to do, so long as they argue in appropriate way. Note for the record. I will permit govt to admit entire exhibit and preclude them from entering the others.
Walton: You're taking a toll on me today.
Jury IN!! Finally!!
More on the Libby trial.
No comments:
Post a Comment